Trumpcare

[Johnny_L.A]

@emcee2k

You know it’s bad when Trump doesn’t want to put his name on it.

I’m stealing that.

[elucidator]

Too late, its a Trump line.

[2ManyTacos]

One of the things I’ve been pondering lately is this:

Ok, so anything that the GOP manages to do legislatively in order to enact Trumpcare will necessarily be done via reconciliation in the Senate; the Democrats aren’t going to cooperate with any Republican senators to undo any of the fundamental regulatory mechanisms of the ACA that cannot be undone via arcane bare-majority Senate procedures. In other words, absent a GOP Senate majority of 60+ seats (which isn’t plausible), complete repeal of the ACA just isn’t possible.

Consequently, does it not also follow that Democrats could reverse the same draconian measures of Trumpcare via reconciliation as soon as they have a bare-majority in the Senate and retake the House & presidency? I guess what I’m getting at is whether we’ve entered a new political paradigm in the healthcare wars wherein we can expect wild left/right pendulum swings in national healthcare policy every four to eight years. The basic regulatory framework of the ACA is immune from repeal because of the 60-vote threshold, but reconciliation means that the policy itself can alter between various iterations of Obamacare and Trumpcare each time one party commands total control of the government.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@emcee2k

You know it’s bad when Trump doesn’t want to put his name on it.

@Johnny_L.A

I’m stealing that.

@elucidator

Too late, its a Trump line.

“[del]Krusty[/del]Trump Brand Seal of Approval: It’s Not Just Good, It’s Good Enough!”

[Kimstu]

@Velocity

Enacting Obamacare was unpopular.

Not really. It was tremendously unpopular with Congressional Republicans, but among the general public, on average, there have always been about as many people in favor of it as against it.

It’s becoming more popular now that people realize that it may actually be replaced with something significantly worse.

[D_Anconia]

@Kimstu

It was tremendously unpopular with Congressional Republicans, but among the general public, on average, there have always been about as many people in favor of it as against it.

Wow. That’s certainly a ringing endorsement. :rolleyes:

[raventhief]

@emcee2k

You know it’s bad when Trump doesn’t want to put his name on it.

Saturday Night Live used that exact line just now.

[Kimstu]

@D_Anconia

Wow. That’s certainly a ringing endorsement. :rolleyes:

You seem to have missed my point. My remark wasn’t offering any “ringing endorsement” of the ACA, just refuting the false claim that its enactment was actually unpopular.

Unpopular things are things that, y’know, most people don’t like. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, for most of its existence has been neither distinctly popular nor distinctly unpopular—until now, when many people are starting to realize that they could well be seriously worse off without it.

[Ambivalid]

@jsgoddess

Trumpcare is a perfect name. The GOP expected something super shiny and got something tacky and overpriced.

The missing word before Trumpcare is “Profits”.

[Johnny_Ace]

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
It was tremendously unpopular with Congressional Republicans, but among the general public, on average, there have always been about as many people in favor of it as against it.
[/QUOTE]

@D_Anconia

Wow. That’s certainly a ringing endorsement. :rolleyes:

A large number of those against it still harping on ‘death panels’ and other Republican hogwash. Of course, that number are eating it up.

[D_Anconia]

@Kimstu

You seem to have missed my point. My remark wasn’t offering any “ringing endorsement” of the ACA, just refuting the false claim that its enactment was actually unpopular.

But it wasn’t popular either.

Some on the left seemed to have missed that point.

[Johnny_L.A]

@D_Anconia

But it wasn’t popular either.

Some on the left seemed to have missed that point.

The claim is that the ACA is ‘tremendously unpopular’ [direct quote]. It does not need to be ‘tremendously popular’ to prove the claim false. Which it is. Some on the right seem to have trouble understanding that concept.

[Ca3799]

@filmore

That’s what I can’t understand, either. Why would anyone buy insurance in that case unless they knew for sure it was going to make financial sense?

A family’s premiums might be $1000/mo, but they likely don’t use that much service every month. If they instead had to pay cash, they likely would spend less than $1000/mo in most cases. So it makes sense for them to do without insurance until they need it and then sign up when they have a big expense. Then they pay $1300/mo with the penalty until treatment is complete and then drop insurance when they are better.

Wouldn’t this group include anyone that changes jobs, too? Most companies have a 90 day waiting period for new employees to be eligible to sign up for their health insurance plan.

If someone quit, got fired, or changed jobs for any reason, and also found a new job on that very same day with a typical company who offers health insurance with the typical 90 day waiting period, would that person would still suffer the 30% penalty?

Would the company pick up some of the increase in relation to the amount they typically cover when including emplyees in their health plans? (For example, my comapny covers about 2/3rds of the total cost of my health insurance. Would I pay the whole 30% increase myself, or would we split the increased costs?)

[Anny_Middon]

@Ca3799

Wouldn’t this group include anyone that changes jobs, too? Most companies have a 90 day waiting period for new employees to be eligible to sign up for their health insurance plan.

If someone quit, got fired, or changed jobs for any reason, and also found a new job on that very same day with a typical company who offers health insurance with the typical 90 day waiting period, would that person would still suffer the 30% penalty?

Would the company pick up some of the increase in relation to the amount they typically cover when including emplyees in their health plans? (For example, my comapny covers about 2/3rds of the total cost of my health insurance. Would I pay the whole 30% increase myself, or would we split the increased costs?)

I suspect the Pubs are going to say that the employee should have signed up for COBRA. Too bad if you can’t afford the premiums.

On the plus side this scenario may get more companies to provide insurance from the first day of employment or to pay some form of stipend to help the employee buy coverage for the waiting period.

[Lucky_Mike]

@Aspenglow

Perfect. +1.

An internal Republican memo leaked last week revealed the main points of the new WealthCare plan, broken down as to how it will affect the Rich, the Middle Class, the Poor – and Everyone.

For the Rich:

[ul]
[li]They willl receive a 346 billion dollar tax cut.[/li]
[li]They will receive an HSA increase that they will be able to fully fund and will need the least.[/li]
[li]They will receive the benefit of new age-related subsidies which they do not need, depriving the neediest from the benefit of them.[/li]
[li]50% of all benefits from WealthCare will go to people who earn more than a million dollars per year.[/li]
[li]There is an included 10 billion dollar cut to pay for pharmaceuticals, health care devices, etc., which wealthy people can afford to pay for out of pocket but needier people cannot.[/li][/ul]

The Middle Class:
[ul]
[li]Their individual subsidies will decline about an average of 57%.[/li]
[li]Subsidies are no longer tied to income, geography, etc., meaning wealthy people who don’t need subsidies will receive them, leaving less for the more needy.[/li]
[li]Major premium increases will occur to people 55-64 years old.[/li]
[li]There will be a tax increase on employee benefits – benefits will be reduced or eliminated by employers as a result – and millions will lose coverage.[/ul][/li]
For the Poor:
[ul]
[li]Medicaid expansion will be reduced by 277 billion. Most states will drop Medicaid expansion as a result.[/li]
[li]There will be a 370 billion cut to Medicaid over 10 years, expected to pay for the tax cut for billionaires.[/li]
[li]Medicaid will be block granted and capped forever to individual states.[/li][/ul]

For everyone:
[ul]
[li]Sicker people can be charged more if they have a gap in coverage of more than 63 days.[/li]
[li]10 essential benefit protections will disappear, including mental health.[/li]
[li]Prevention and Public Health Fund, 10% of the CDC budget, will be eliminated.[/li][/ul]

Yep. Sure looks like a fine replacement – for the wealthy.

You have a source for this?

[Aspenglow]

@Lucky_Mike

You have a source for this?

Here you go.

There are thousands of sources to verify the information contained in the above link. Just Google a bit.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Aspenglow

Here you go.

There are thousands of sources to verify the information contained in the above link. Just Google a bit.

Silly person! It’s easier to be skeptical than it is to do a modicum of research!

[wonky]

@Ca3799

Wouldn’t this group include anyone that changes jobs, too? Most companies have a 90 day waiting period for new employees to be eligible to sign up for their health insurance plan.

If someone quit, got fired, or changed jobs for any reason, and also found a new job on that very same day with a typical company who offers health insurance with the typical 90 day waiting period, would that person would still suffer the 30% penalty?

Would the company pick up some of the increase in relation to the amount they typically cover when including emplyees in their health plans? (For example, my comapny covers about 2/3rds of the total cost of my health insurance. Would I pay the whole 30% increase myself, or would we split the increased costs?)

The premium only applies to the individual market, not to the employer market.

[adaher]

This bill is a bad bill, but “Wealthcare” is a bad talking point. C’mon Democrats, try a little!

[elucidator]

How about “oppression of the proletariat by the ruling class”? You like nostalgia?